LegalFirms.in
LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/ram-pratap-vs-anand-kanwar-ors-20180821/ · Printed 07 Nov 2026
Civil · Reportable judgment

Ram Pratap vs Anand Kanwar & Ors.

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
21 August 2018
Case No.
Civil Appeal No. 8504 of 2018
Result
Dismissed
Bench
N.V. Ramana, S. Abdul Nazeer
Citation
[2018] 10 S.C.R. 70 : 2018 INSC 729
Supreme Court Reports [2018] 10 S.C.R. 70 : 2018 INSC 729
Headnote

Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 – s. 13(1) & (3) and s.19A – Eviction of tenant on the ground of non-payment of rent – Fixation of provisional rent – Mandatory or directory – Held: Use of the word ‘shall’ in s.13(3) makes it mandatory on the court to fix provisional rent within three months of the filing of the written statement but before framing of the issues, irrespective of any application or not – If the rent so determined by the court is paid by the tenant as provided u/s. 13(4), no decree for eviction of the tenant can be passed on the ground of default, in view of s. 13(6) – Thus, compliance of s.13(3) is mandatory in the suit for eviction on the ground of default – Rent Control and Eviction.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court –

HELD: It is evident from Section 13(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 that the use of the word ‘shall’ puts a mandatory obligation on the court to fix provisional rent within three months of the filing of the written statement but before framing of the issues, irrespective of any application or not. If the rent so determined by the court is paid by the tenant as provided under Section 13(4), no decree for eviction of the tenant can be passed on the ground of default under Section 13(1)(a) in view of Section 13(6) of the Act. It is thus, clear that unless the determination under Section 13(3) takes place, s. 13(6) cannot be complied with and a valuable right given to a tenant would be lost. The High Court rightly held s. 13(3) to be mandatory. [Para 14] [75-D-F]

As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.

Full Judgment Text

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by S. ABDUL NAZEER, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. In this appeal, the appellant has questioned the legality and correctness of the judgment and order in S.B Civil Second Appeal No.186/1998 dated 08.08.2016, whereby the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan (Jaipur Bench) has allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the courts below and remanded the suit to the trial court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. 3. The appellant-plaintiff is the landlord of the suit schedule premises, whereas the defendant is the tenant. The plaintiff
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools. For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.

This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.

All SC judgments →